The PBR (1052403508367) was sought by the adult son of the deceased, who was also the legal representative of the estate of the deceased.
The deceased was survived by four adult children, including the applicant, who stated that he was financially supported by the deceased from the time he was a child, up until the time of his death.
In the facts presented to the tribunal, the applicant stated that whenever he and the deceased met over the past 10 years, typically a few times a year, the deceased gave the applicant money to help pay for bills, food and petrol.
The deceased once paid for a year-long gym membership for the applicant, and the applicant stated he relied on the deceased’s financial support in order to stay on top of bills and afford his housing.
He further provided that he cannot provide any proof of the purported financial support, as the deceased used cash wherever possible and never transferred money to the applicant.
Based on ATO-held information, the applicant’s income in recent years predominantly came from their employment.
In its ruling, the tribunal said the applicant was not a person who was a dependant of the deceased just before the deceased died.
“Paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997 is not satisfied, therefore the applicant is not a death benefits dependant of the deceased,” it said.
“As the applicant is the adult child of the deceased, paragraphs 302-195(1)(a) and (b) of the ITAA 1997 are not applicable. As the applicant did not live with the deceased in the period leading up to the deceased’s death, the requirements of paragraph 302-195(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 (interdependency relationship) cannot be satisfied.
“Therefore, it is necessary to consider paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997 – whether the applicant was a ‘dependant’ of the deceased just before he died.”
It continued that, as was affirmed in Griffiths v Westernhagen [2008] NSWSC 851, dependency involves more than the mere receipt of support, but also reliance on it, stating:
“For a relationship of dependency to be established there must be more than the mere giving of money. Rather, there must be a relationship where one party relied on the other for what is required for their ordinary living.”
“This was also reflected in Edwards v Postsuper Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 83, where the Full Court of the Federal Court agreed with the Tribunal that while the deceased provided many gifts to his family, it did not consider that would make the appellants and their family financially dependent on the deceased,” the ruling stated.
“The applicant has advised that the financial support provided by the deceased was in the form of cash. As such, the deceased’s bank statements show no evidence of any financial support being provided to the applicant, let alone a level of support which is considered necessary for the applicant to meet normal living expenses such as groceries, mortgage/rent, transportation costs, utility bills, medical expenses, and which would constitute financial dependency.”
Furthermore, it said that given the level of the applicant’s income from other sources, including employment and rental income, such an amount, even if it were verified, would not come close to constituting financial dependency.
“The applicant had sufficient income to support themselves financially and was not financially dependent on the deceased to pay for their ordinary living expenses. For financial dependency to be established, there must be more than the mere giving of money – there must be a relationship where one party relies on the other for what is required for their ordinary living.”
